Observational studyReproductive health2016
Retrospective analysis of the impact of increasing access to long acting reversible contraceptives in a commercially insured population.
Observational study in Reproductive health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Interpretative Study of LARCs Discontinuation in Ethiopia: The Experiences of Women Accessing Contraceptives in Selected Public Health Facilities.Open access journal of contraception · 2023Article
- Medicaid and receipt of interval postpartum long-acting reversible contraception.Contraception · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnintended pregnancies have been shown to be associated with high costs for the healthcare system, among other adverse impacts, but could still account for up to 51 % of pregnancies in the US. Improvements in contraception among women are needed. Long acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), which have proved their safety and efficacy, have been found to significantly decrease the risk of unintended pregnancy. Yet they are still marginally employed. This study aims at investigating the evolution of LARC use over 15 years and at assessing the impact of the introduction of newer LARCs on LARC use relative to all contraceptive use.
methodsThis retrospective study identified women with LARC or short acting reversible contraceptive (SARC) claims from a US insurance claims database (01/1999-03/2014). Yearly proportions of LARC users relative to all contraceptive users were reported. Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the impact of user characteristics, such as age group (15-17, 18-24, 25-34, and 35-44), and of time periods related to the introduction of new LARCs (01/2001: Mirena, 07/2006: Implanon, 01/2013: Skyla) on LARC use.
resultsA total of 1,040,978 women were selected. LARC use increased yearly from 0.6 % (1999) to 16.6 % (2013) among contraceptive users. Time periods associated with the introduction of a newer LARC were significant predictors of LARC use; women in 2006-2012 and 2013-2014 were respectively 3.7-fold (95 % CI:3.57-3.74) and 6.6-fold (95 % CI:6.43-6.80) more likely to use LARCs over SARCs relative to women in 2001-2006. The increase in LARC use was especially pronounced in young women. Compared to women aged 18-24 in 2001-2006, women aged 18-24 in 2006-2012 and 2013-2014 were respectively 6.4-fold (95 % CI:5.91-6.86) and 14.7-fold (95 % CI:13.59-15.89) more likely to use LARCs over SARCs.
conclusionsThis broadly representative commercial claim-based study showed that the proportion of privately insured women of childbearing age using LARCs increased over time and that the introduction of newer LARCs corresponded with significant increases in overall LARC use. Future research is needed to assess LARC use in uninsured or publicly-insured populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.